Legal expert Chief Wole Olanipekun has revealed how the late military ruler, General Sani Abacha, altered Nigeria’s judicial landscape through the implementation of Decree No. 107 of 1993. He made this statement while delivering a keynote address at the 11th Annual Public Lecture in honor of Pastor Enoch Adejare Adeboye’s 83rd birthday.
Olanipekun, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), noted that Abacha’s decree significantly expanded the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, taking away many responsibilities previously handled by State High Courts. He explained that this shift changed how justice was delivered in Nigeria, limiting the powers of state courts and consolidating judicial authority under the federal government.
The keynote speaker also discussed how Abacha used legal amendments to influence political matters, including the controversial annulment of the June 12, 1993, presidential election. He noted that before Abacha’s rule, Supreme Court justices retired at 65, but the regime extended the retirement age to 70 through Decree No. 6 of 1997. Olanipekun argued that this change was politically motivated, aimed at preventing Chief M.K.O. Abiola’s appeal from being heard at the Supreme Court.
“It is common knowledge that the late politician, renowned accountant and foremost business mogul, Chief M.K.O Abiola, GCFR, won the June 12, 1993 presidential election. No less a personality than the then Military President, General Ibrahim Babangida formally confirmed this recently, during the public presentation of his autobiography on February 20, 2025;
“Shortly before and after the 1993 presidential election, a flurry of developments followed, starting from the judgment of Justice Bassey Ikpeme of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on June 10, 1993, purportedly restraining the holding of the election (which invariably held), followed by the promulgation of Decree No. 61 of August 26, 1993, signed by General Babangida, not only nullifying the presidential election of June 12, 1993, but also establishing an Interim National Government. The Interim National Government was dissolved by General Sani Abacha on November 17, 1994 by Decree No. 23, a Decree which also declared null and void and of no effect whatsoever, the decision of Akinsanya J of the High Court of Lagos State (which, inter alia, had declared as unconstitutional, null and void, the Interim National Government).
“Before the ascension of power by General Sani Abacha, all Judges/Justices of our superior courts of record retired at the age of sixty-five. It was General Abacha who, by Decree No. 6 of 1997, amended section 255 of the 1979 Constitution to increase the retirement age of Justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal to seventy years, not only for political reasons, but also to ensure that Abiola’s appeal at the Supreme Court was frustrated, as he failed, refused and neglected to appoint any Justice to the Supreme Court immediately after the decision of the apex Court in Abiola v. FRN supra, where the then Chief Justice of Nigeria and six other Justices disqualified/recused themselves from hearing all matters pertaining to Chief M.K.O Abiola. With the disqualification of seven of the Justices of the Supreme Court, the remaining Justices could not form a quorum of five to hear or determine any appeal or matter relating to or concerning Chief Abiola. Thus, his appeal to the Supreme Court was politically frustrated, while he languished in detention till he died. Today, the amendment contained in Decree No. 6 of 1997 has been transferred to section 291 of the 1999 Constitution, except that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu assented to the Bill”.
“Sensing that any Judge of the High Court of Lagos State or a Judge of any State High Court might, in any cause filed to challenge his usurpation of power, General Sani Abacha quickly promulgated Decree No. 107 of 1993 which radically amended section 230 of the 1979 Constitution, by exponentially expanding the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to include nearly all subjects and causes imaginable, including “the operation and the interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies.
“Since then, the jurisdictional landscape of Nigeria changed, and the State High Courts are now left with what I describe as ‘agrarian jurisdiction’. It is that amendment contained in the 2nd Schedule of Decree 107 of 1993, expanding the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court that has now been transplanted into section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.
Dwelling on the misconceptions, Olanipekun said “Justice and equity are like the proverbial elephant brought before a group of blind men who had never had the privilege of sight. They were individually asked to describe the elephant which they could only sense by touching. Each man felt a different part and described the elephant based on his limited experience. One touched the trunk and thought the elephant was like a snake; another felt the ear and believed it’s like a fan; the third touched the leg and said it’s like a tree; another felt the side and described it as a wall. One touched the tusk and thought it’s like a spear; and the last one felt the tail and believed it’s like a rope. All this lends credence to the fact that, what justice and equity might mean to one, might be construed by another as injustice.”
He explains that Justice and Equity are sacrosanct ideals to humanity and they are the cornerstones ,ultimate safeguards of human rights, dignity and moral order in every society.
The keynote speaker said “Social justice is a concept that evolved from religion. It is justice, not in the strict juridical sense, but in relation to the distribution of resources, opportunities, and privileges in society”
According to him, “justice is rooted in confidence and the courts should abstain from doing anything that may erode the root of justice. The courts should enhance confidence in the administration of justice”
“The relevance of equity to justice could be explained in terms of ‘fairness’ and ‘good faith’ which are indispensable components of justice. Therefore, when contextually examined, it is only ideal to expect an intertwine between the concepts of justice and equity. Anything short of this, would naturally impeach the credibility of the system that has mid-wived such kind of ‘justice.’ Just like the blood and the blood bank, justice is as durable as its purveyor.
